SC grants divorce to husband and orders him to pay Rs 30 lakh as maintenance to his wife

The Supreme Court granted the divorce under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“HM Act”) after the wife showed no inclination to resume cohabitation and the husband continued to abandon her without any reasonable cause.

The bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan observed, “Hence, the treason of the appellant continued at least from 2008 to the date of filing of the divorce petition in 2013 without any reasonable cause. Therefore, a decree of divorce on the ground of treason under Section 13(1)(ib) should have been passed. In our view, the Supreme Court should have confirmed the decree of divorce on the ground of treason. This is a case of complete breakdown of a marriage which has lasted for over 16 years.”

Senior advocate Sukumar Pattjoshi appeared for the appellant while AOR Himanshu Sharma appeared for the respondent.

Marriage was solemnised between the parties and two children were born to the marriage, who are now adults. The marital dispute resulted in several court proceedings. The marital disputes began in 2006, after which the husband filed an application under section 9 of the HM Act for restoration of conjugal rights.

By judgment and order, the lower court issued an order for the restoration of marital rights, in which the wife was ordered to join her husband's company within three months.

In the husband's case, his wife had failed to comply with the order restitution of conjugal rights and had therefore applied to the Family Court for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under section 13 of the HM Act.

Being dissatisfied with the judgment of restitution of conjugal rights, the wife filed an appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The appeal was dismissed by a judgment and the judgment of restitution of conjugal rights was confirmed.

The divorce petition was also granted and the marriage between the parties was dissolved, but the wife contested this. The Supreme Court subsequently set aside the divorce decree.

Two further legal disputes arose between the parties. The defendant filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, demanding maintenance from the plaintiff.

The court held: “The one-year period had not yet expired when the applicant filed the divorce petition. In the judgment of the Court of First Instance dated 15 May 2013, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, the courts accepted the applicant's claim that the continuous desertion had continued since December 2006. The judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court on 19 February 2015. Admittedly, the respondent did not resume cohabitation after 15 May 2013 until the date of filing the divorce petition. She does not claim that anything happened after the judgment restoring conjugal rights was passed that prevented her from joining the applicant's society.”

The Court also observed that the husband had offered a lump sum maintenance of Rs 30 lakhs to the defendant and that amount was reasonable and acceptable as a one-time lump sum maintenance.

The court also stated that there was no evidence in the case file that the wife had shown even the slightest inclination to resume cohabitation with her husband after the judgment restoring marital rights was passed.

Accordingly, the Court partially allowed the judgment by setting aside that part of the impugned judgment by which the Supreme Court had interfered with the divorce decree on the ground of desertion and dissolved the marriage by a divorce decree under section 13(1)(ib) of the HM Act.

Case Title: X vs. Y (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 476)

Appearances:

Appellants: Senior Advocate Sukumar Pattjoshi, AOR Rakesh Mishra, advocates Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi, Sandeep Kumar Dwivedi, Satyam Pandey, Vishwajeet Mishra and Awadhesh Kumar.

Defendant: AOR Himanshu Sharma, advocates Aditi Sharma, Varun Sharma Basant Kumar and Arun Kumar.

Click here to read/download the judgment